The Hearings Official and the staff findings both failed to consider and <br />properly apply the substantial evidence provide by the Public Works <br />Department (PWD) analysis. (See the discussion under Subassignment of <br />Error 10.A, which is incorporated here by reference.) <br />See Conte 10/9 pages 17 to 20 and Conte 10/16 page 12 (Item #7). <br />SIXTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />The Decision erred by finding the application met the following approval <br />criterion: <br />EC 9.8320(13) The proposed development shall be reasonably <br />compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby <br />land uses. <br />The Decision erroneously found that the PUD would be reasonably <br />compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby land uses, despite the <br />substantial impacts of traffic and/or street widening and improvements on <br />the nearby residents and single-family home owners. <br />With respect to traffic, the Hearings Official addressed only the requirement <br />for the development to be "reasonably compatible" and neglected to address <br />the requirement that the development's substantial increase in traffic, which <br />will make numerous round trips out and back along the entire length of <br />Oakleigh Lane, is "harmonious" with the nearby residents. Decision at 55. <br />ORS 174.10 requires that both terms be given meaning, and the Hearings <br />Official may not "omit what has been inserted" into the criterion by City <br />Council. <br />The Hearings Official relied on his findings for EC 9.8320(12), but failed to <br />provide the required specific explanation for how those findings demonstrate <br />compliance with EC 9.8320(13). The discussion under the Fifth Assignment of <br />Error, above, and which is incorporated here by reference, demonstrates that <br />the Decision is erroneous in this reliance. <br />The Hearings Official and the staff finding both failed to consider and <br />properly apply the substantial evidence provide by the Public Works <br />Department (PWD) analysis. (See the discussion under Subassignment of <br />Error 10.A, which is incorporated here by reference.) <br />See Conte 10/9 page 20. <br />Further, the Hearings Official's finding that there was "no evidence" of traffic <br />issues in the record also ignored the evidence of Mr. Simon Trautman <br />regarding a significant accident on River Road at the intersection of Oakleigh <br />Lane. The accident was due to the short windows to get onto River Road. <br />Appeal Statement PDT 13-1 14 November 22, 2013 <br />